tv Cavuto on Business FOX News October 19, 2009 4:30am-5:00am EDT
something like that? brenda: yes, somewhere in the attic. i don't know. you know who really thinks out of the box? up next. >> would you hire a contractor who comes to your house and demands not just a deposit but the entire payment up front, and then as he is leaving says to you, i will be back in a few years? what if i told you you are about to? welcome, everybody. i'm neil cavuto and pay now, get benefits later. yeah, but years later. the way this healthcare reform thing is presently structured, the taxes and the fees, well, they all come first. the stuff they are actually paying for comes around 2013 or so. so why is my buddy charles payne so upset? well, before he rants, allow us
to introduce our other taxpayers, adam cowell and gerald mcgowan. what is wrong with paying beforehand? >> i went to a furn furniture store and they said you get it in three months, i would say are you kidding? neil: you're right about that. what do you make of the way this deal is structured? >> it's absolutely ridiculous. it gives them cover to try to accumulate some money. in the end, when the gears of it start to work, it will be too late to turn back, but it seems a little like the whole social security thing, too. let's just accumulate a bunch of money before we have to put it out and the program should work. it is one of many, many flaws in this plan. neil: we're leaving aside the fact that we're building a pile of money that will be a healthcare lockbox, and a big pile of money that will have
hundreds of billions of dollars in it. the issue is we can't use it for healthcare until 2013. >> the even they do this is it is ten years of taxes in phase to cover six full years of spending is because the math won't look good enough to get it through congress otherwise. what you're also facing is a congress that's going to have to act to cut costs down the road in order for these numbers to work out, like cutting medicare payments to doctors by 25%, not going to happen, so that price tag is going to get bigger and bigger and bigger down the ode. neil: go ahead. >> the even is for waiting for 2013 is because in 2012 you have major elections. the people putting this into place are worried whether this is going to work or not or collapse the whole healthcare industry. it is also about, without a doubt, a power grab, a redistribution of american's money in back into washington,
d.c. and into the never-ending deal, and they love people's money and they're going to take it first and spend it later. neil: adam, my only question as i try to give them the benefit of the doubt through this whole thing, all right, i knew you would need to raise the money to build what you going to build and have it going, but could you at least before 2013 throw in a free syringe, you know, something? >> well, the word build is a useful verb, neil. i mean, all big government programs require the taxes to start first, and the building to happen later. the year that the interstate highway system -- that the money was appropriated by congress, we did not have asphalt. we were not able to drive our cars on the road then. we needed to plan for it and to build it. neil: but adam, this is like a bridge to nowhere. i'm just telling you, that if you knew when this was pitched and the idea being that this great healthcare deem, it's going to happen in a few years
but would you mind paying for it now? i think that pitch alone should never have sold it. >> well, not all of the fees kick in immediately. for example, there is a delay in the employer mandate, and so there's a delay in the delivery. neil: no, the tax on premium policies and the tax on a lot of this is immediate. that is the thing that gare i and others are worrying about. are you, charles? >> absolutely. the stuff that adam is talking about is really frightening, because we're going to have to subsidize senior citizens and they want to rotate that out, so someone 20 years old will pay premiums out of this world that they can't afford to someone that is 70 years old. neil: they lowered the premium. >>ite now, seniors pay ten times more than someone who is a lot younger and they want to even that out t makes sense that someone older would pay more. >> they have already proposed a surtax on the wealthy. nancy pelosi was onto tube last
week talking about a v.a.t. tax. they is a tax for every little thing at this time. in the next three, four years, just wait and see. i keep saying and i will say it again, they are going to move trillions of dollars of money out of the real economy. >> to gary's point, there are a lot of dirty little secrets in that baucus bill. for one, that 40% tax on plans above $21,000. that'sçç indexed with just inflakes, not healthcare costs t sounds like the alternative minimum tax which down the road will affect millions of americans. neil: one thing that we're discovering as we look for ways to pay for this, and you are right, you need to set something up to pay for it, but a lot of folks saying i'm paying for two, i was driving around in a camry and i find out i have a cadillac plan because i have dental coverage a lot of people are
getting sucked into it and they thought it would just be rich guys like charles payne and they were comfortable with that, but now lo and behold they have to pay more and they're not too happy. >> there's always been an understanding that the fundamental problem is that there is a wide majority of the population that has no access to medical care, no access to reasonable medical care other than going to the emergency room where nobody is going to pay for it but the taxpayers already, that's charles payne and everybody else, and the goal here has always been to tie to serve those people, and i think that most people understand that. as far as what we're really having an interesting conversation here about process. if the congress and the white house, and by the way, gary, that's who you refer to as they. i object to it as they. we doing. this our government is doing this. neil: would you prefer thieving
s.o.b.'s? >> neil, if it kicked in immediately, there would be screaming by everybody, including me that we're doing this too fast. we have to take our time. neil: what's the difference, even if we make it 2011? >> these are the same people that went on t.v. talking about this proposal saying if this isn't approved now we will all fall into the sea and die and healthcare as we know it and economy as we know it will be in shambles. now four years later they're going to put it in? i'm sorry, that is scare tactics by the government. >> you're mixing up two different issues. one was the economic crisis plan of last year, which i believe was the right thing. >> i'm talking about healthcare! >> no one is saying we have to do this now. the president said this is my number one priority, i ran on it. that's what i said when i was elected. >> what are you talking about, adam? they trying to ram this through before the summer break in august until the american people threw their hands up. neil: i would argue with you,
adam, but you used a big word like conflating and i'm still trying to figure it out. my question for you, charles, is all of a sudden now we know the up-front costs are going to be very up front, and the play you get off of that is very down the road, what is the fallout in the economy then? what is the reality? >> this whole thing has been driven by politics so if the masses know that the up-front costs are coming now but it will be them who pays for it -- neil: the thieving s.o.b.'s? >> no, the people who actually go to work. neil: they being the thieving s.o.b.'s and them being the people who work. >> right. so a lot of people out there, you know, unions obviously upset because they get the cadillac plans but as long as the administration can pitch this as don't worry about this. neil: most of the americans who have healthcare coverage have what is considered cadillac
neil: well, $250 not to hear your thoughts. the president wants to give every senior a check, his way for making up for the cost-of-living increase, social security recipients won't get next year, but some suspect that the big guy has other motives. pray tell. >> this payoff would make tony soprano blush! it is so obvious. $250 for every person who gets social security. social security recipients just got $250 checks earlier this year from the stimulus. neil: i think you're being jaded and cynical. now, the recipients were told they won't guest a cost-of-living increase and the president feeling their pain and feels they will get a $250 check which would be roughly the inflation adjustment last year.
>> the payment is a bonus. that is extra money you're getting. neil: i'm just saying, that you are questioning, you are impugning the integrity of the white house. it is a decent thing they're doing. >> >> i am, and the cost-of-living adjustment this year was the highest in more than a quarter of a centi for people on social security, plus your social security dollar amount can't even get hid for medicare part b. because that's in the regulations. the american taxpayers put that in the bill on that note as well. neil: now you have gone over my head. here is what i'm saying, charles making cynical, scwaidzed comments with a whole generation with a screwed view of reality, notwithstanding that, i think for her to insinuate that maybe the president was trying to buy off the elderly on healthcare is a bit much. >> it's lot. it would suggest that maybe he was a politician out of chicago or illinois -- oh, wait a minute!
listen, you don't become -- neil: you both sicken me. >> you don't become a senior citizen without getting sick. listen, they are going to take the checks, but again, where is the money coming from, neil? neil: it is $13 billion. >> the president should feel the pain for people out there that don't have anything out there that want to work, not people that want welfare or unemployment but people who want jobs are the people he should try to help. neil: i'm wondering, gary, where this goes, if, for example, you use this as a model to help people who don't get the increase they with thinking, because we have a low inflation environment, then what do you do if we keep something a low inflation environment, which is very unlikely, by the way, do you just keep printing more money? >> sure, and even president obama said he doesn't know where he will get the money from. it will just be added to the deficit. let's not be cynical for a second. let's say oh, the senior citizens need the money and
let's give them some. it's not just this. there is a movement afoot now to give doctors $250 billion to buy them off, also, because you know how upset doctors are right now with the healthcare bill. guess how they're going to do it? off the healthcare bill so it doesn't add to that deficit so the c.b.o. makes nice-nice. it is one payoff after the other. it is not just these two -- neil: the $250 to billion to doctors, i missed that. >> oh, costs of medicare that they may be able to save. neil: got you. >> the main point is that it seems to be there is a checkbook out and they're just trying to buy voting blocs here and there to move their agenda afoot. look, it is not just democrat. it is republicans and everybody^ . it has got to stock. neil: adam, i i don't want to ce in to incentivism. i am just raising the timing issue that you astutely pointed
out. do you find the timing wierd? >> well, you don't have to cave into it, neil, you can take the president and his people at their word, that this is well-meaning, and in my opinion, i know this will shock you as a bad idea. this is bad policy. there is a reason for it. neil: oh, fox news alert! he says the white house skewed up. continue. >> and i don't know if they're being cynical. there is always horse trading. neil: there is horse something going on, but it isn't trading. >> i think anybody with the last name starting with k should get $100,000 each from the white house at this point. i think that would work very well. >> be patient, maybe it will come to you. >> medicare will never get fixed until this country is in the tank and we're bankrupt r because nobody is willing to say no more!
>> we are bankrupt. we are in major deficits and we're funding our deficits with future money out of good americans', children and grandchildren. we're already there. neil: just think in about 100 years we'll all be dead. the older you are, the more you pay! neil: get ready, seniors, the rowdy seniors at forbes say you should pay more for healthcare, and wait until you hear how much we are paying to create each stimulus job in this country. all of these guys are
neil: $16 billion, 30,000 jobs and the white house is bragging, which has my pal gary wondering. those 30,000 so-called saved or createed jobs, exactly how many of them are actually new jobs? that's your basic issue here, right? >> well, i'm still looking for what i would call the efficiency czar in government at this point in time. neil, when we hear these numbers, i know they are kind of smallish and $200 grand here, but we're now talking about the billions and trillions of deficits that on an individual basis i don't think people really feel it, but in total, eventually we're going to feel it in a big way and if government doesn't just start doing something about this, and i don't see anybody really trying, we're going to be in a heck of a lot of pain a few years from now just because of the things we're talking about. neil: we should stress that not all of that money has been
allocated. it is a staggering amount but it is a lot per job, so each one of the construction workers we were showing were named rockefeller. the bottom line is it is a lot for a job. tau is more than half a million per job based on those numbers. based on the money spent, it is more than $66,000 per job. at the end of the day -- but you're already talking about, you're hearing from people in washington about the additional stimulus that they need, which we talked about on this show. let's extend the home buyer tax credit. ette's extend -- let's extend the unemployment benefits. are we going to wait for it to work to see if it works? no! we're going to spend more money. neil: charles, remember when we were kids and there was a game show and someone and through a store with a basket, right and you could put anything you wanted in it, and you had maybe 2 minutes to fill up your basket, so i would have gone to the electronics aisle followed
to the baker ry products aisle. that's what we're doing here, fill the basket up and get it to the register! >> we did that one time, too, in harlem during the blackouts. neil: whatever happens in harlem stays in harlem. >> classic redistribution of wealth. we all pay taxes. if you look at each state, what each state said they would save, talking about california, 53,000 in jobs saved but we all put money into the tax system but the only jobs saved are unions, teachers. it is classic redistribution of wealth. if you're not in the union and don't vote for democrats you won't get any of that money you put into the pot. 65, 70% of jobs saved were union jobs. the rest went to welfare, americorps. i got to tell you, and the net
result is that the dollar is getting hammered because of this deficit spending and wier redistributing wealth. neil: gary, it gets worse from here? >> well, there's no checks and balances. where there's no checks and balances and no accountability, it's simply going to conchts continue to roll downhill. a lot of people are yapping and nothing is getting done. neil: will this be the death of mankind as we know it? >> the worst part of it isn't the redistribution of wealth, but industrial policy. we're having government decide what goes into the economy rather than market forces decide. that's not the best way to do it. however, it did boost people's psychology at the right time. neil: you can't redistribute wealth if you don't have wealth, but that's another issue. stick around for your stocks that will give you a raise right now. you need to listen to something this guy picked in march is up
neil: welcome back. stocks to give you a pay raise right now. charles, by the way has been on fire lately. he picks tech resources back in march. you got into that one, right? and you're up more than 730%, right? oh, you didn't? >> adam didn't like that one either. >> what do you got now? >> computer associates, c.a. as
they call it, it has some troubles with the law, but on the cusp of a major breakout and cloud computing i like this stock. neil: gary, what do you think of that? >> i don't want to argue with charles after that last pick. tech has had a great unso maybe you are due to pull back. >> starbucks, the company has restructured well, gotten rid of money-losing stores and really looking at profits more than ever here and i think it has another 50% here in the next year. neil: adam. >> acting real well, doubled and is extraordinarily expensive. i think people have pied in the better performance at starbucks. neil: so what are you doing? >> something called natural resource partners nrp, a coal company, neil. they will benefit from the politics on the cap and trade. the obama administration won't want to hit them too hard. it is inexpensive and pays a big fat dividend.éqñ?ñ?ñ neil: the big fat dow